Posted by Racer on June 5, 2006, at 22:46:17
In reply to Single sex marriage for heterosexuals?, posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 13:36:41
I just got involved in another thread about this very subject. Surprisingly, not one participant was in favor it banning gay marriage -- and all were strongly opposed to addressing the issue at all until we get through some other minor things. Like Iraq. Or leaving all those children behind. Or, you know, things like that.
My own opinion, which I offer up for no good reason at all, is this:
Marriage is a religious ceremony, when you come right down to it. Binding civil union should be available to ALL, should they want it. Most of Europe recognizes BCU now, where it's considered a kind of Marriage Light. Why not offer that to EVERYONE in this country, and catch up with the rest of the world?
I'd draw the line at names: if neither party is willing to change his/her name, then it should be a BCU. But I think I feel that way because it was so difficult for me to adjust to changing my name. I didn't just change surnames when I was married -- I dropped my first name, which I'd never used, made my former middle name my first name, and my maiden name became my middle name. Even though I'd never used it, it was remarkably hard to lose my first name.
poster:Racer
thread:645106
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060417/msgs/653453.html